A backlash will happen, maybe sooner than you think. It's fascinating to see how quickly attitudes have changed in one direction. If gays push too hard, those attitudes could just as easily shift again. The whole argument for homo acceptance is built on the notion of live-and-let-live. But gays aren't at all practicing what they preached. Their petulant, self-righteous attitude could get old soon. Duck Dynasty didn't pay much of a price for crossing them. Chick-fil-A has been hurt so much that their sales per store are now over three times those of KFC (despite being closed in Sundays).

My theory is that SWPL liberals worship gays because it gives them diversity and tolerance poi nts. Gentrified cities (San Fran, Portland, etc.) and industries want to.be seen as embracing diversity without actually having to, ya know, suffer for it. So they embrace gays as a substitute for hiring blacks and Hispanics. SWPLs befriend gays for the same reason. They're a stand-in for the real diversity that actually scares them shitless. It gives them warm fuzzies inside and allows them to feel morally superior to everyone else. Plus, gays really know how to party. They can party seven nights a week, since they never have to worry about finding a babysitter.

The way that the 'equalities' agenda has so overtaken the west - to become *the* dominanant dogma, being apparently unchallenged and unchallengeable and being enforced with zealous, quasi-muslim type fanaticism. You can actually see the hatred and madness in the eyes of the 'equalities' enforcers. The genesis, as with so many modern evils, goes back to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the accompanying turmoil that more or less murdered the good, blessed real America prior that awful time. The psychotic fanaticism that the self-styled, self-righteous 'morally good' used to favor blacks has merely been , by infinite encroachment, used to favor other deignated 'victims'. The mad-eyed, murdeerous, cu-throat fanaticism is merely a sypmtom of the self-righteous proving how 'good' they are.

I'm all for stomping homophobes forever. What really matters right now for the West is immigration and conservatives are proven failures on that, again and again and again in one country after another.

I'm definitely not going to be voting for people who have a proven track record of yielding on immigration and picking useless battles over unimportant fringe groups like homosexuals in the totally futile hope that those Third World minorities with their amazing "family values" will start voting conservative. None of what the gay rights advocates want will have any noticeable impact on society.

Impressive debaters, more skilled and confident in themselves than our pathetic gladhanders, posing as representatives of a free people.

The "conservative" deputy prime minster Nick Clegg challenged Farage (at least 4 times, I lost count) and the audience that Farage wanted to bring the UK back to a time - Oh, I guess the 1960s - when homosexuals couldn't marry, were locked in asylums, hounded, pursued and burned as just so many "faggots" in a pile of straw. Wisely, Farage didn't take the bait and just ignored Clegg, focusing on the issues of massive population transfer, disruption of the traditional British culture and the soft tyranny of Brussels. The consensus opinion: Farage kicked Clegg's a**. Will the STUPID party take notice?

Very true!! Also the radical gay activists reciprocate the New Left's attention to the detriment of the vast majority of their fellow gays.

They do this by pretending that anti-gay violence is being perpetrated by white rednecks when in fact it is committed almost exclusively by NAMs or as a function of "rough trade". Outside of the Matthew Shepard media hoax cover up of a rough trade related murder, the last heterosexual white male attack on a gay that I remember involved a mentally ill man who thought the gays were out to get him just like the postman and paperboy.

Funny thing is all those surveillance cameras in urban areas and WSHH videos are not showing bands of ax handle wielding, bib overhauls wearing, rednecks from the suburbs jumping out of pickup trucks and roughing up gays. You would think this would be grounds for giving pause. Instead it just amplifies the hysteria.

SWPLs in their endless pursuit of upworthiness are certain that gay marriage will mean the end of the very anti-gay violence they feel so guilty about white racists (not?) committing.

Besides having a gay best friend is so much easier than having a black one.

QUOTING jaakkeli:"What really matters right now for the West is immigration and conservatives are proven failures on that, again and again and again in one country after another. "

OK, sounds reasonable. Stopping mass immigration would improve america and the rest of the white nations. Sounds good. Maybe we can figger out what is going on, instead of just noticing things. Noticing things is nice. But understanding things is better. But we need to understand before we can do things.

Hey, here is an idea: what if the whole World War G and the War Against Racism and other aspects of political correctness are all caused by the same forces?

See, when I see an apple falling from a tree, I think, "Hey, that's the force of gravity pulling the apple towards the earth."

Everywhere I look in this universe I see forces and fields interacting with matter. Everything is in this universe has a reason to explain why it is the way it is.

Causes and effects.

Same thing in american society. There are also forces at work here. They have effects.

I think the same forces that causes political correctness and the war against racism also caused World War G. What if we could figure out something about these forces, i.e., their origins and manner of application?

OK, let me give political correctness, the War Against Those Evil Racists, World War G, etc., et al., an overarching Name. I put a name to thee!

The War For Inclusiveness.

How about that?

And in every war there are soldiers. Who are the soldiers enforcing the laws of political correctness, who are the ones who punish the transgressors, the homophobes, the racists? Who are ones who point and scream, "Witch! Burn the Witch", er, I mean, point and scream, "Racist! Homophobe! Fire the Racist! Demonize the Homophobe!"

You know who they are. The same ones that shouted "Commie! Pinko! Imprison the Commie!" 60 years ago.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The foot soliders of the elite played their role then, fighting the wars of ideology at the behest of their masters, and they play their roles now. The war is a little different now, but really still the same. It's fought to enhance corporate profits. Ah, corporations.

In every war there are cannon fodder soldiers, and there are officers, and captains etc. And then at the top there are Generals.

Ah, generals. The corporations?Who and what are the forces that created political correctness, that started The War For Inclusiveness? And more importantly, why did they start it? What are the forces that caused it?

I quote Freddie Blassie from the classic song "Pencil Neck Geeks":

They say, "these geeks come a dime a dozen."I'm lookin' for the guy who's supplyin' the dimes.

Who is supplying the dimes here?And why?

Let me go out on a limb here and say the motivation is Money. Same as it ever was. The generals of this war, those at the top, are fighting this war for Big Money. Same as it ever was.

If we will accept gays, embrace them and welcome their into society openly, then we will accept everyone, even those from foreign lands and from very different lands. Give me gays, and then give me your huddled masses.

How does making americans be more inclusive, more accepting of gays, nonwhites, africans, asians, and every other type of foreigner make those at the top richer?

Gays are relatively safe, cute and charming exotic pets whose 'rights' can be championed by those with a cheap need to feel noble without a great deal of personal risk. In most people's observations, don't most women seem to fawn all over gay men? They just love love love those gays. Straight men might go along for the ride but usually don't comes across as being particularly enthusiastic.

Nick Clegg is definitely NOT a Conservative. He is a member of the Liberal Party - and that says it all.Back in 2010, there was a backlash against what was rightly seen as a right-wing Friedmanite Labour Party, (it was right-wing in terms of economics and bashing workers, but hard left in terms of coddling 'victims' and promoting massive uncontrolled immigration - basically it was the British copy of the Democrat Party). Many, many disgrutled ex-Labour voters couldn't stomach voting for the party of Blair/Brown, and so switched allegiances to the Liberals - who in all fairness were running o a damn sight more socialist manifesto than New Labour were. Result was a fragmented election in which Labour lost support massively, but the Tories couldn't win outright - hence the 'coalition'. In the event, Nick Clegg has proved himself to be a supine traitor. David Cameron's human foot-stool, rather like the ill-fated Emperor Valerian became Shapur's human horse-mount. Damned, two-faced, shameless, lying traitor Nick Clegg.

Even one of the bibles of the modern homosexual movement, John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980), demonstrated that historically every period of "social tolerance" of homosexuality was followed by a backlash. Now that the bardashophiles have gone so far to undercut the secular institutions that generally do the most to transmit traditional culture (marriage, the military, scouting), the coming backlash is going to be magnificent.

I say WHO CARES. They are pretty much harmless, and generally are much smarter, more talented, more creative, more conscientious, etc., than most other groups. Yes the fringe crazies can be annoying -- but that can be said about the fringe crazies of any group.

So they [SWPL Liberals] embrace gays as a substitute for hiring blacks and Hispanics. SWPLs befriend gays for the same reason.

Few SWPL Liberals in fact, and few heterosexuals of any sort, have homosexuals for real friends: they may know homosexuals, as colleagues and acquaintances, for example; and they may well get along with them and even like them.

But they do not befriend them. Nor by the same token do homosexuals seek out heterosexuals for friends.

Friendships between them do however exist, in small numbers, in college. But most of them end when the friends in question leave college and go out into the wider world.

The view of life in America as portrayed on TV, in which homosexuals of both sexes (and Blacks) are intimately involved in the personal and romantic lives of Whites, is false, nothing more than Liberal propaganda.

I'm all for stomping homophobes forever. What really matters right now for the West is immigration and conservatives are proven failures on that, again and again and again in one country after another.

I'm definitely not going to be voting for people who have a proven track record of yielding on immigration and picking useless battles over unimportant fringe groups like homosexuals in the totally futile hope that those Third World minorities with their amazing "family values" will start voting conservative. None of what the gay rights advocates want will have any noticeable impact on society.

Fortuyn made a much bigger impact than any conservative, ever.

The Law of Merited Impossibility strikes again: "It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get."

You guys are kidding themselves. What backlash? I'll believe it when I see it.

Here's a credible backlash: people resign from OKCupid en masse.

Is that happening? I don't see it. I mean, it's not like giving up OKCupid involves any kind of sacrifice.

People stop using Mozilla en masse (not that the companies that produce the other browsers are better) - I don't see that either.

You're wrong about Duck Dynasty. The reason Phil Robertson got away with what he said was because he has a solid, fervent base of support. But Eich lives and works in the belly of the beast, see this:

http://tinyurl.com/lncrgoy

This is the future, read it, bitches.

The homo-fascists who started this (names are in the article) knew & liked Eich - they would have been satisfied with Eich groveling to them, admitting he was wrong. Eich is allowed to be a married father of five kids. It's OK, that's part of diversity. Just don't go saying it's the right way to be.

You azzholes don't realize the enormity of this movement, its power and reach.

Look at the surrogacy (= reproductive prostitution) movement. It will be legal in all 50 states. Poor women will breed for rich gay men.

In the next few years I expect that homophobia will be a part of the DSM, and that the courts will be empowered to remove children from parents expressing homophobic sentiments.

More than two parent families will be legalized in all 50 states (it's already happened in California, about which Steve has said nothing).

If you can have three parent families, why not three adult marriages?

The entire family structure of the US is shattered.

The backdrop of all this is WWG, in which Russia stands for home, family, manliness.

So what do you think about the "resignation" of the Firefox CEO...because he donated to the CA prop. that said no to gay marriage in CA (like THAT did any good--voters NEVER win over suck-face judges any more).

You can't even keep your voting record (as donation to a political cause seems to me to be a proxy for one's vote) private any more.

I'm definitely not going to be voting for people who have a proven track record of yielding on immigration and picking useless battles over unimportant fringe groups like homosexuals in the totally futile hope that those Third World minorities with their amazing "family values" will start voting conservative. None of what the gay rights advocates want will have any noticeable impact on society.

You are wrong. It is exactly because conservatives caved in on every little, so-called unimportant social issue over the past fifty years that they now find themselves unable to oppose anything. Through incrementalism the Left has thoroughly transformed society over the past fifty years to the point that this reshaped society is more conducive to their point of view.

Like trained dogs the Right has been programed to respond to words like 'racisim', 'sexism', 'homophobe', 'xenophobe', etc. They allowed the left to get their way on nearly everything, and once the Right yielded on an issue, it made the next issue that much more likely to succeed.

Additionally, and maybe even more importantly, they allowed the Left to define the language. In addition to allowing the entry of the aforementioned code words, they allowed the Left exclusivity as the lexicographers of these new code words. The Left now gets to decide who violated these new tenets and who gets a pass. Naturally it seems only those on the Right are ever held in violation.

At this point whatever the Left wants, it will get because the Right has been totally subdued by language like Superman was to kryptonite. If the Left decided tomorrow it was no longer for immigration, but the Right insisted we continue it, immigration would cease. It is immaterial at this point what the Right wants. If the Left wants something, it now has all the institutions of government, media, business to get its way.

This did not happen overnight. It is the culmination of surrendering little battles time after time. Battles that many advised the Right not to fight because they seemed unimportant. The cumulative effect of those little battles has been devastating.

I think Steve and many of the commenters here take their opposition to the establishment and the left too far, to the point of railing against good ideas simply because of their association with these groups. Gay rights is an excellent example. There is no legitimate reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Opponents of gay marriage really are on the wrong side of history.

Yes, the liars and fools who want to flood our country with third world peasants and who denigrate straight white men are right on this issue.

Also, most accusations of homophobia are justified, unlike most accusations of sexism and racism.

Note the relevance of Steve's previous post, regarding how outrageous poster children like Pollard benefit the ADL and similar grievance hustlers.

To the extent that homosexual campaigning "backfires" in some 3rd world country the next time a scapegoat against anti-Western imperialism is needed, so much the better for the homosexual lobbies in the West. More carnage means more money and more glory for them. And if that means a pile of dead homosexuals in Uganda or Nigeria, then so long as the bleeding takes place far away from DC and Brussels, it's just eggs for the omelette. The more blatant and antagonistic and provocative the campaigning is, the better it works out for them.

"OK, let me give political correctness, the War Against Those Evil Racists, World War G, etc., et al., an overarching Name. I put a name to thee!

"The War For Inclusiveness__________________________

Nope, not it.

Inclusion isn't the problem.

It's the lack of sameness that bothers both gays and blacks.

See, no matter how you spin it, it's true that blacks, world-wide, are not the same as Asians and Whites when it comes to aggression and cognition. It seems they know this no matter how educated or non-educated they are. Seeing others have more success than they, they strive to cover what they know to be true and so argue that their failures are the "lack of inclusiveness."

It reaches even greater levels of absurdity with gays. I mean, they know they don't or won't produce kids the old fashioned way and know they are not the masculine men they admire, so they've gone on a crusade to convince everyone that homosexuality as an evolutionary trait is jus "normal variation" when it's clear that evolution has NOT selected for a trait that causes it's own demise.

It's not about inclusion any more, but I suspect you indeed know that.

"Normalizing" homosexuality by refusing to speak to biological realities and etiologies will be, in the end, impossible.

The cause of the trait will be discovered and prevented one day.

In the mean time, that doesn't mean people should treat homosexuals badly but neither does it mean the trait should be promoted as biologically normal.

The right's vitriol and hysteria over equal rights is bizarre. Looking at the big picture, this is footnote to a footnote. You look and sound a lot like the people decrying the end to anti-miscegenation laws after Loving v. Virginia.

The powers that be have been demolishing your standard of living through corporate oligopoly power and mass immigration for decades now, and all you can think about is how much you hate a small number of people in a tiny handful of neighborhoods in cities you never visit. Like it or not, the gays have always been with us and always will.

As for the idea that tolerance of gays is equal to, and inevitably leads to tolerance of all manner of foreigners, bull crap. We are proceeding from the propositions that all of the citizens of this country are entitled to the same rights and that there are no second class citizens.

Here is the view of free speech held by Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation Mitchell Baker, in her own words:

"Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality."

"Equality is necessary for meaningful speech." So unless you agree with her about "equality," your speech isn't "meaningful." It isn't really speech--not in any meaningful sense, that is. So naturally it shouldn't be protected or respected, should it?

"And you need free speech to fight for equality." So the purpose of speech (meaningful speech) is "to fight for equality." That's the raison d'etre of free speech, its delimited mission.

The man who designs something real (can the Javascript crit, at least it's something) is forced to resign for, basically, voting the wrong way in his private life. The skank who gets a "Women of Vision Award" is praised and petted to the heavens as a goddess.

PS: Took me a little longer than expected to get rid of Firefox (and Mozilla apps) from all my computers. But it's done as of this afternoon. Nuked it, the lot, and went with, let's say, the browser that came with my computers.

Y'all should do that, too. It felt as good as punching someone's lights out.

Here is the address for posting comments to the Mozilla message board:

community-usa@lists.mozilla.org

I don't believe you have to subscribe in order to comment there, but I'm not sticking around that place long enough to find out. One way or another, you can make your voice heard with that address. I was going to offer the usual advice for people considering whether or not to comment: "be nice." However, I don't really think we should be nice in this case. I will say only "be legal" and "be coherent" and leave it at that.

Marriage is not a right. Nor is anybody entitled to a right, as if "a right" were some concrete object. The only rights are negative rights, i.e., freedom.

>There is no legitimate reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.<

There is no legitimate reason why they should be allowed to marry. Do you know what marriage is? Marriage is a government contract granting legal privileges denied to the unmarried. (If you don't know what these legal privileges are, then ask any same-sex marriage activist.) Therefore, to be justified it must have a social purpose. The only germane one is bearing a child and raising it. (Yes, I think the barren shouldn't be granted marriage licenses.) However, if by "marriage" we mean instead what has lately been termed "domestic partnership," i.e., marriage without a license, then no one should stop anyone's marrying in this fashion, for love. That is a right - it's no one else's business because it demands nothing concrete from other people. But a legal marriage, by contrast, involves more than the feelings of the parties. An interesting question: are same-sex partners applying to be married required to take a blood test? And if so, why?

None of what the gay rights advocates want will have any noticeable impact on society.

No, of course not.

They won't destroy the Boy Scouts; they won't destroy adoption for orphans; they won't siphon off billions of research dollars to ameliorate the consequences of their choices; the LBGT Bs won't infect females with HIV; they won't prey on the confused adolescents who don't know what they can be, or will be, depending on their choices; they won't degrade our military capabilities; they won't evade taxes through 'marriage equality'; they won't put people out of business who don't embrace their politics; they won't demand obeisance and affirmation through Orwellian doublespeak and the police power of the state.

There is no legitimate reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Opponents of gay marriage really are on the wrong side of history.

Homosexuals ARE allowed to marry, you nitwit. They don't want to get married, they want to redefine marriage so they can cohabit with people of the same sex and call it "marriage."

There's no legitimate reason to include something that isn't marriage in the definition of marriage. On the other hand, marriage is a heterosexual institution involving two people of the opposite sex, and there's every reason to refuse to redefine it out of existence to satisfy a tiny minority that's little more than a demographic sink. Especially since marriage isn't going to fix homosexuals.

If they want a "homosexual equivalent to marriage" (the very idea belongs in quotes, IMO), they should do what people have been doing for eons, and come up with their own institution - not steal ours, ruining it in the process.

I mean, FFS. A huge number of people DON'T WANT "homosexual marriage," i.e., to redefine marriage out of existence to satisfy a tiny minority. What are they? Chopped liver? They don't want what they have destroyed by this minority or its appeasers, which is reason enough for homosexuals to find their manners and create their own damned institution.

Telling them "NO" is a great way to get them used to hearing, "NO." Children need to hear that growing up, for its own sake, so sometimes you just tell them no "because." That's a great reason, right there.

The fact that homosexuals won't be satisfied with their own version of "marriage" is evidence enough for me that their campaign has more to do with destroying marriage than with "equal rights" (a risible talking point).

The right's vitriol and hysteria over equal rights is bizarre. Looking at the big picture, this is footnote to a footnote. You look and sound a lot like the people decrying the end to anti-miscegenation laws after Loving v. Virginia.

The powers that be have been demolishing your standard of living through corporate oligopoly power and mass immigration for decades now, and all you can think about is how much you hate a small number of people in a tiny handful of neighborhoods in cities you never visit. Like it or not, the gays have always been with us and always will.

I don't hate homosexuals, and I don't like or dislike their existence. I don't care. I do hate liars and bullshit artists, though, and so far you're qualifying nicely.

As for the idea that tolerance of gays is equal to, and inevitably leads to tolerance of all manner of foreigners, bull crap. We are proceeding from the propositions that all of the citizens of this country are entitled to the same rights and that there are no second class citizens.

Drop the "equal rights" nonsense. Just drop it. You know perfectly well that homosexuals have (and have had) the same right to marry as anyone else. The...exact...same...rights. You don't want equal rights. You want to redefine the rights to suit your preferences, trampling on it so that it doesn't suit us in the process. You want to steal what's ours and redesign it to suit you.

Few SWPL Liberals in fact, and few heterosexuals of any sort, have homosexuals for real friends: they may know homosexuals, as colleagues and acquaintances, for example; and they may well get along with them and even like them.

I disagree. There's much truth in the "fag hag" stereotype. Middle aged white women seem to go well out of their way to make friends with gay men. These women have been the vanguard for political forces trying to normalize the gay lifestyle.

I'm sure some of them are just picking up accessories, but I have no doubt some of these friendships are "real" - it's difficult to judge the quality of any relationship from the outside.

"Gay rights is an excellent example. There is no legitimate reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Opponents of gay marriage really are on the wrong side of history. "

Homosexuality is disgusting, and in my mind I refuse to elevate a "gay marriage" to the same regard I have for the real thing. It's your side insisting that I must that irks me. You can pass all the legislation you want but I will never consider a gay marriage as equal to a real one, and that's that.

The Duck Dynasty farrago was never about the guy's interview showing up the tv station. The highest ranking show saw its namesake merchandise being removed from stores and then after much free publicity was put back so that the tv station could get their cut of the merchandise sales.

The Robertsons do not need the tv station but the tv station need the Robertsons.

I disagree. Marriage in the West has always been the union of one man and one woman, going back to antiquity and further, for the Romans, ancient Greeks, Germanic tribes, and for all we know, Indo-European tribes or earlier. Even Roman emperors didn't usually have harems, except Roman Emperors of Middle Eastern origin. Polygamy is a non-European institution, which makes more or less egalitarian societies impossible (unless somehow you could make sure that more girls than boys are born), and is one of the causes of clannishness etc.

Once we redefine marriage to include the union of two men or two women, we really can have no reason to say no to polygamy and polyandry, legalized hippie communes having group sex, the marriage of a woman after menopause and her son, the marriage of a guy after vasectomy and his daughter, etc. We should also provide for these couples or groups of people to adopt any children - if homosexual men with their frequent breakups, high STD infection rates, etc. are fit parents, so should be the people mentioned above.

So yes, "gay marriage" is yet one more attack on the foundations and millennia-long traditions of our societies.

Thank you to the person who supplied the community-usa@lists.mozilla.org link.

This has been happening to supporters of Prop 8 since the passage:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/14/local/me-lopez14

I rarely say things like this but I truly think that the Eich massacre is a cultural turning point. He's not just another scalp. This is not the Robertson affair.

Eich was a CEO, a star in the progressive Silicon Valley culture, who was publicly defenestrated. The statement by Winifred Baker was one of the worst things ever written. She has proven herself to be a heartless, lying, backstabbing, treacherous fraud. She would not stand by a man who enabled her fairytale career, and with whom she had strong business ties for years.

Homosexuals ARE allowed to marry, you nitwit. They don't want to get married, they want to redefine marriage so they can cohabit with people of the same sex and call it "marriage."

Exactly. The Amazing Race had a "gay married" team on the show way back about 2003. They had rings and everything. There have been ministers willing to "marry" anyone who asked for a long time.

They said that wasn't good enough because it didn't give them the right to file joint taxes and visit each other in the hospital. So people said, okay, fine, we'll give you civil unions that will give you those rights you're missing out on without calling it marriage. They would have had the rights and the rites.

But that wasn't good enough either, because they still wouldn't have..... Oh yeah, every single person in the world throwing rice at their wedding. As soon as there's not a single person left who looks away disapprovingly, they'll be satisfied.

"Gay rights is an excellent example. There is no legitimate reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Opponents of gay marriage really are on the wrong side of history. " - Status is a zero sum game, and when it comes to the evolutionary fitness of a society as a whole, it is those who wish to harm their own that are "on the wrong side of history.".

Worship of gays seems to be limited to the Western elites. Gays are treated the same way in the rest of the world as they have been since the dawn of time.

Gay marriage is an overreaction, but the thing is many traditional societies found ways to thread the needle. I.e. permit homosexuality in public life without sanctifying it or damaging societal institutions. This is something western societies have been incompetent at since the end of the ancient world plurality and the introduction of Abrahamic monotheism. Speaking of, where do you think all those men repulsed by females were during the middle ages?

I don't think that what they are after is only weddings. This may sound crazy (well, it does sound crazy) but I think they want to force funding for assisted reproductive technology to enable same sex reproduction.

It *is* crazy, but it's an idea some of them have. It may never happen, but they'll bankrupt us trying.

"... a higher level of disgust sensitivity is predictive not only of political conservatism but also disapproval of gay marriage. It is important to underscore that your disgust sensitivity is involuntary; it is not something under your control. It is a primal, gut emotion.

...think that humans have core preferences for how societies ought to be structured... ...preferences on such matters appear to have a genetic basis.

...research on the physiology of ideology with waves of other studies showing that liberals and conservatives appear to differ when it comes to genetics, hormones, moral emotions, personalities, and even brain structures, the case for politics being tied to biology seems pretty strong indeed."

"None of what the gay rights advocates want will have any noticeable impact on society."

They've already destroyed the serious study of humanities... no serious young person will now study Shakespeare or Henry James, because only identity-political interpretations are allowed. And the decline of reasonable humanities may prove to be the most consequential of all in our slouch toward disaster.

Gays are relatively safe, cute and charming exotic pets whose 'rights' can be championed by those with a cheap need to feel noble without a great deal of personal risk. In most people's observations, don't most women seem to fawn all over gay men? They just love love love those gays. Straight men might go along for the ride but usually don't comes across as being particularly enthusiastic."

And from the SWPL man's perspective, there isn't much chance that they (gays and the gay-rights cause) will steal their women, although - in a real sense - they do.

The lust for vengeance that homosexuals are displaying is reason enough to oppose them. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg. The mask is coming off. They want to screw your children, and they won't stop until you applaud that. I used to work in a factory full of lesbians, with Mexicans to do the lowest skilled labor. I had particulars skills that they needed, and since the chief bull dyke hired me, I was left alone. It was one of the best jobs I ever had, but only because I had the boss's protection. Without that, I wouldn't have lasted a month.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.